----------------------------Original message----------------------------
 
THE FOLLOWING IS BEING POSTED ON GOVDOC-L, MAPS-L, AND LAW-LIB.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|   T H E     D U P O N T     C I R C L E     R E P O R T E R   |
|                                                               |
|              An Informal Newsletter for the Federal           |
|                   Depository Library Community                |
|  June 10, 1993                                          No. 7 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
     CONTENTS:  * GOVDOC-L posting by Gary Cornwell
                * Summary of Comments on DCG Documents
                * Highlights of Depository Library Council Meeting
                * GPO Access Bill Signed into Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on GOVDOC-L on 8 Jun 1993 by Gary Cornwell
Re: Question for the Dupont Circle Group
 
Folks:
 
   I take full responsibility for the comments to the DCG report
not yet being posted to Govdoc-l. There has been an excellent response
from the community and that it part of the reason that nothing has
shown up.  To date, about 100 responses have been received to the
report...the first 50 of which were available at the Depository Library
Council meeting.  The problem with posting all the responses to the List
is there is simply no way to key in all that data.
 
   The idea was (and still is) to post a summary of the comments to
Govdoc-L and to make the full folder containing all the comments available
at ALA and to any other group wishing to use them.  Without making excuses,
I am just now getting unburied from all the things left over from the
Council meeting and began work on the comment sheets yesterday (honest,
I did).  Several individuals and groups provided several pages of comments
not only to the DCG report, but also on the DLP in general.  If possible,
I would recommend these people post there comments to the List...I think
it would be of real value to the community.
 
   Where we go from here is tentative at best, but one idea that was
knocked around at the Council meeting was to have a meeting in the
Fall...perhaps in conjunction with the Fall Council meeting (especially
if it was held outside of D.C.) where depository librarians could meet
to turn the Dupont Circle Report into final recommendations or at a
minimum a couple of acceptable options.  I am still hearing from Congress
that they want to know what we want. This meeting could then be followed
in the Spring by a larger meeting of all the stakeholders in the program.
***The difference in the 2 meetings being the first is our chance to say
what we want...and mechanisms seem to be in place to get that information
out once we do; and the second meeting would be a chance to try and get
consensus from all involved.****
 
   With regard to how we get all this to people not attending a library
meeting or not on Govdoc-l I don't have a real good answer.  Part of this
goes back to comments I made in Denver regarding the need for an
independent documents group...certainly this could be a function of
theirs.  Mailing labels are available from GPO, but they obviously cannot
pay mailing costs to get DCG Reporters or comment sheets out to everyone.
The Regionals were very receptive to getting initial reports out to
libraries in their states, but we have been reluctant to ask them to do
weekly mailings. I'm not sure that this is a role of GODORT, but their
meeting is coming up and if people feel strongly enough, I would urge
them to ask GODORT Steering to fund getting information from the DCG (or
any other independent group that might be looking toward restructuring/
improving the Program) out to the people.
 
   Basically, I'm very excited about the responses that we have received
and the interest that people are expressing in the future of the DLP.
Based on what I've seen the last 6 months, I'm also pleased at the prospect
of having a meeting this Fall.  It appears that the time is right to get
something accomplished...both in long-range planning and in short term
steps which might allow the time and flexibility for loftier goals.  Well,
I'll quit rambling and get back to the comment sheets with hope of getting
something posted before weeks end.  In the meantime, I welcome any comments
or ideas regarding anything I've mentioned.  Thanks.
 
************************************************************************
 
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON DUPONT CIRCLE DOCUMENTS
 
   From the outset, the primary goal of the Dupont Circle Group was to
prepare a paper that would prompt community discussion.  Before
any reorganization of the Depository Library Program could take
place, it was the Group's contention that librarians and other
interested stakeholders must have an opportunity to comment on
what aspects of the Program were important to them.  Based on the
overwhelming number of comments received during the month
following the release of the report, it appears that the Group's primary
goal was met and that it is time to begin analyzing the comments and
moving toward some final recommendations.
 
   To date, about 100 comment sheets have been received in response to
the report.  While the majority are individual responses, many are
from state documents groups or similar consortiums.  With very little
exception (less than 5%) there is strong consensus that changes must
be made to the Depository Library Program.  As expected, there is not
a similar consensus as to what those changes should be.  There are,
however, some common threads that run through all the comment
sheets.  Indeed, while the majority of respondents were academic
libraries, a preliminary analysis of the type of libraries responding to
the survey seems to indicate a ratio proportional to the various types
of libraries in the Program.  And, at least on the major issues, the
libraries seem to be in agreement.
 
   At first glance, there appears to be universal support of the mission
and goals statement presented in the report: "The mission of a federal
information access program is to make government information freely
available in usable formats to meet the diverse needs of multiple
publics."  Even one of the critics who felt there was no need to change
the Program had no problem supporting this mission statement.
However, a closer look at the comment sheets indicates that this
statement might be too broad, or that at a minimum it should be
amended with the following caveats:
 
   First, it must be understood that there will be multiple providers of
information in the future and that a "Federal Information Access
Program" need not be the only mechanism for information delivery.
Second, and this was a frequently made comment, unless the
program is adequately funded there is no way that any of this is going
to work.  Furthermore, without adequate funding either the goals and
objectives of the program are going to have to be re-negotiated or the
program itself is going to have to be downsized.  Finally, there was a
strong sentiment that libraries must do a better job of evaluating the
services that they are offering.  If indeed these are the goals of the
program, libraries must devise a mechanism to measure their ability
to meet the needs of the information using public.
 
   There was also widespread support (although begrudging) for the
rather bleak "Ghost of DLP Future" scenario presented in the
"Discussion Draft."  While some felt this scenario might be overly
pessimistic, virtually everyone agreed that it was a distinct possibility,
and many felt the Program might not last five more years as currently
structured.  As an indication of how strongly the community felt on
this matter, when asked to rate the "status quo" against two
other program models (on a scale of 1 to 3, with 1 being the most
favored) the "status quo" averaged a 2.54 rating as compared to a 1.65
and 1.75 rating for the other models.  Similarly, when asked who
should be the governing body for a revised Program, GPO finished last
of the three options listed (GPO for all formats, GPO for paper
distribution in combination with another agency for electronic products,
or a new independent agency).
 
   The program model that gained the most support was the system of
Government Information Access Centers (GIAC) designed to provide libraries
a flexible, multi-faceted access system to government information
resources.  There was also considerable support for the model put
forth by ARL several years ago which consists of Basic Service,
Intermediate Service, and Full Service Center libraries.  Many libraries
felt the most important aspect of the entire document was the interim
short-term proposals and hoped that at least certain aspects of them
could be implemented quickly.
 
   At the Spring 1993 Depository Library Council meeting the DLC
considered the future structure of the Program and the alternatives
presented in the Dupont Circle documents.  While no consensus was reached
on a future structure of the DLP, Council concurred with the library
community that the short term goals as presented by the Dupont
Circle Group should be given high priority.  In their recommendations
to the Acting Public Printer, Council made the following short-term
recommendations:
 
          Council recommends a moratorium on the establishment of
          new depository libraries.
          Minimum technical requirements for existing depository
          libraries should be developed.  In addition, it is the opinion of
          Council that libraries should be given a reasonable amount of
          time to meet these requirements.  Failure to comply with these
          requirements after a reasonable period of time has passed
          should be treated as non-compliance and a major infraction of
          the rules for depository libraries.
 
          The depository library community should be surveyed (with all
          deliberate speed) regarding potential interest in the following
          two ideas for short-term restructuring of the Depository
          Library Program:
 
          A)   Basic Service Centers - a library could select a core
               collection but have no opportunity for other selections or
               changes.  This would reduce overhead and maintenance
               for the library and reduce distribution costs for GPO.
 
          B)   Cooperative regionals or multi-state regionals where the
               terms and conditions of being a regional are different
               from the current structure.  For example, Regionals
               might not have to select 100% or might not be required
               to retain all material forever.
 
          Council supports the recommendation made by the Dupont
          Circle Group that the focus of the inspection program be
          changed to place more emphasis on education and training.
          In addition, Council believes that inspectors should rotate
          within GPO as ombudsman to communicate with libraries on
          depository issues.
 
   Interestingly enough, one area that seemed to split the community
was how rapidly the Program moves toward electronic dissemination
of government information.  (With the passage of the GPO Access Law, the
question no longer appears to be "if" but rather "how").  The fact that
this notion split the community is not surprising, but that there was
no pattern among library type as to how they felt was intriguing.  For
example, many small public libraries argued that the Program needs to move
full speed into electronics, while others felt they were nowhere near
ready for a shift of this magnitude.  These same extremes were echoed by
each of the various library types responding to the survey.  This
division is perhaps one of the reasons for the support of the "GIAC"
model that allows libraries different selection options.
 
   A FOLDER CONTAINING ALL THE RESPONSES TO THE DUPONT CIRCLE REPORT WILL
BE AVAILABLE AT ALA.  This material is also available to any group wishing
to use it in there discussions of restructuring the DLP.  Groups wishing
to use the comments in their deliberations should contact Gary Cornwell
at the University of Florida Libraries.
 
   The next step in this process is to continue discussion of
restructuring of the DLP at the meetings of the various library
organizations.  Since most of these will be held this summer, it is
hoped that additional comments can be received and analyzed by the
Fall.  Tentative plans call for an open meeting of the Dupont Circle
Group to be held in the Fall to produce final recommendations for a
revised DLP from the depository librarians' viewpoint.  This would be
followed in the Spring by a conference of all the major stakeholders in
the Depository Library Program.
 
GARY CORNWELL                     PHONE:     (904) 392-0366
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES   FAX:       (904) 392-7251
DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT              BITNET:    GARCORN@NERVM
LIBRARY WEST                      INTERNET:  [log in to unmask]
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA  32611
 
************************************************************************
 
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DEPOSITORY LIBRARY COUNCIL SPRING MEETING
May 17-18, 1993, Washington, DC
 
     The Depository Library Council focused its Spring 1993 meeting on
a discussion of its draft document, "Alternatives for Restructuring
the Depository Library Program" (DLP).  The draft report does not
come to any conclusions or recommendations, rather it discusses the
history and objectives of the DLP, lists the assumptions Council
was working under when discussing restructuring of the program, and
outlines some alternative scenarios for the program.
 
     Council suggested five possible reasons for why they were even
talking about restructuring the program.  The changing nature of
information dissemination, moving from print to electronic is one
reason.  The second reason is a response to the economic crisis
surrounding the program.  A third reason is addressing the fact
that there is a better way, a better vision for disseminating
government information.  A paradigm shift to a user driven system
is the fourth reason.  Lastly, with all the electronic initiatives
taking place right now, restructuring may be needed to redefine the
depository library's role in the new information environment.
 
     While it might be true that changing formats and a better
vision may be upper most in many people's minds, the economic
crisis is still a large factor that can't be dismissed.
 
     Council then addressed the question of "What are the
values/goals of the DLP?"  Seven such values/goals were identified
and Council felt that it was possible to define a role for
depository libraries in each of them.
 
1.   Informed electorate - government accountability.
2.   Economic benefits - building better economic potential or
     opportunities.
3.   Education
4.   Intermediaries - librarians know what information is out
     there and how to find it.  Libraries serve as information
     utilities.
5.   Neutral sites - libraries serve as the boy/girl scouts of
     the information arena.  Libraries don't have an axe to grind,
     there is no spin put on the information.  As Senator Kerrey
     said, "People trust libraries."
6.   Libraries are the heart or focal points of communities
     and therefore the obvious link to get government information
     to citizens.
7.   Libraries serve as a way of sharing information - between
     federal government, state governments, and citizens.
 
Assumptions
 
The assumptions in the draft report now read as follows:
 
1.   A DLP should and will continue to be a vital link between
     the citizens and the agencies of American government.
2.   As currently structured, the DLP is floundering so badly
     that its very existence is threatened.  The Depository Library
     Council believes that significant restructuring of the Program
     is needed to ensure it future viability and to ensure that it
     will continue to meet the objectives for which it was
     established.
3.   The burdens on the Regional Libraries are causing a
     breakdown in the system.  The Depository Library Council
     believes that it may not be necessary for 52 regionals to keep
     everything in perpetuity, and that other aspects of the
     regionals' responsibilities may need to be re-examined.
4.   The cost of running the program is increasing faster that
     the willingness/ability of Congress to provide the funds.  If
     this pattern continues, the program needs to find ways to
     leverage its resources.
5.   The DLP will contain both print and electronic information
     for the foreseeable future.
6.   As a result of the increased availability of electronic
     information via the INTERNET and other sources, user
     expectations concerning access to all forms of information
     will change and increase.
7.   Information professionals, in their roles as
     intermediaries, will continue o be a key part of the program.
8.   In the new information environment, there will be many
     more diverse points of access to information.  The traditional
     library will be once centralized place for information, but
     there will be others as well.
9.   New laws, regulations, and information systems, and
     related changes in how government information is collected,
     maintained, and disseminated will have a major impact on the
     depository library program.
10.  Some libraries will be partners in the change; some will
     not.
 
     While discussing assumption one, it was questioned whether we
should say depository libraries or just libraries.  Is this
assumption too limiting for how we envision the future?  Libraries
will serve a vital link in the transition, but depository libraries
may be "A" link, not "THE" link.  It was also pointed out that the
Dupont Circle Group did not make the assumption that the DLP will
exist as we now know it.  Does Council really mean GPO's DLP or
rather a system of active government distribution in a systematic
way of its information resources through libraries?   Additionally,
it was argued that the DLP will continue to be a vital link because
not everything is going to be electronic and the archival function
of libraries is essential.  If Council can agree with the DLP
benefits statements (both to the public and to federal agencies) of
the Dupont Circle Group, then assumption one is true.  It may not
be the DLP as we now know it, but there will be some designated
group of libraries to act as intermediaries between the source of
government information and the end users.
 
     The alternative scenarios for a restructured program cover a
wide spectrum and are the result of brainstorming.  Some require
major changes to the program as it now stands; some are minor
changes.  Some might be done in conjunction with others; some would
stand alone.  Scenarios included are:  1) multiple service levels,
2) direct support model, 3) creation of a national collection of
last resort, 4) creation of a network of super-regionals, 5)
creation of a system of electronic depositories, 6) require
libraries to meet minimum technical guidelines to be full
participants in the system, 7) create a system of subject-based
regionals, 8) restructure DLP to recognize new role for
depositories when electronic information comes through a network or
a single point of access, 9) rename the program to recognize
changes brought on by the era of electronic information, and 10)
downsize the program to meet budgetary constraints.
 
     The scenarios can be grouped into three clusters -
economically oriented, access to electronic, and relationships
between different kinds of depositories.
 
     Downsizing was the first economically oriented scenario
addressed.  Downsizing means two different things - reducing the
number of libraries in the system and also reducing the number of
items selected by libraries.
 
     There was a general feeling among some Council members that
many smaller libraries feel that the administrative overhead is
killing them and might force them to drop out of the Program.
Picking up on the Basic Service Centers outlined in the Dupont
Circle Report, it was suggested that some libraries might be
willing to receive a predetermined core set of items in exchange
for different overhead responsibilities (i.e.,. no inspections, no
disposition lists, etc.)  Just selecting less material does not
reduce the overhead burden.
 
     Another aspect of downsizing is requiring libraries to meet
some sort of minimum requirements or standards to be a depository
library.   But what exactly is meant when we say minimum
requirements or standards?  Are we talking about overhead
responsibilities, computer workstations, shelving, staffing, or
service?   And are we trying to increase or decrease the standards?
     In some instances we may be trying to decrease the overhead
burden so the quality of service can be increased.  Equipment
requirements might be used to convince a director of the need for
such equipment in order to stay in the Program.  But lowering the
overhead burdens may result in the Program not do what it was
intended to do by Congress.
 
     Reducing the number of libraries in the system raises a whole
host of other questions/concerns.  The Council report states that
one of the strengths of the Program is that depository libraries
are in every Congressional district - can we turn around and start
pulling libraries out?  How do you handle redistricting and
grandfathering in which produces more than two libraries per
Congressional district?  The law currently doesn't allow for
undesignating a depository library.
 
     While it is true that reducing the number of libraries in the
Program would address the economic concerns, it may not address the
other reasons for restructuring.  If there are two or three
depository libraries in one district, do they all need to be of the
same service level?  Can you restructure so you have different
criteria for law libraries, federal libraries, etc.?  Or different
criteria levels dependent on the number of items selected?  Or
could you require that all the libraries in one Congressional
district can't collectively select more than 125% of all available
items (this assumes Regionals are excluded in this formula)?
 
     The other economically oriented scenario is the direct support
model.   This model has as its basis the notion that customer
satisfaction or empowerment from the perspective of the consumer is
the best measure of success and the best place to control the
system.  It relies on knowing how much each library costs the
system and how much money is available to support them. Each
library then gets to chose how to spend its allocation - either on
products and services from GPO or from any other provider.  This
system won't get GPO any more money, but does enable libraries to
feel more ownership in the system.
 
     There were many questions about this model.  Can GPO, would
GPO give this much control to libraries?  The additional
administrative aspects to implement this are astronomical.  How do
you assign value to items - by publications, by item numbers, or
what?  How do you determine the base budget for each library?  How
do you know when a library has spent all their money?  How do you
allow for new publications?  What benefits does this system provide
to users?  Who is going to take the less glitzy stuff and how will
librarians know who has what?
 
     This model is mainly designed for when GPO doesn't have enough
money.  If GPO is covering all the costs and everyone is getting
what they need, then this proposal isn't necessary.
 
     Four of the Council scenarios fit into the electronic access
cluster: 1) GPO as the primary point of access, 2) electronic
depositories, 3) minimum technical requirements, and 4) renaming
the program to recognize changes brought on by the era of
electronic information.
 
     Before discussing these scenarios Council addressed the question
of "What is the role of GPO in providing access to electronic government
information?"  Is it limited to tangible products and services as is
suggested in one of the Dupont Circle Group models?  Should GPO
concentrate on the print products, the things they do well, and look for
another source for depository libraries to receive the electronic
information, so they don't have to split resources to get into a
whole new ballgame?
 
     There are many who feel that the time for central coordinated
distribution has passed.  Agencies have information out there on
the Internet, and WAIS servers.  Should GPO's role in electronics
be having a locator or access system?  Is it wrong to say that
depository libraries are going to be able to fulfill their mission
with only online sources from GPO in the future?
 
     Or should GPO act as an intermediary to acquire electronic
services for the DLP rather than bring them up themselves, build
its own computer system or tie into a supercomputer in the sky?
Many believe that GPO should serve a procurement role on behalf of
the DLP.  One way for GPO to do this is for GPO to become a GOPHER
site, gopher into other federal data sources, or if necessary,
telnet out to get into other sources.
 
     Or instead of GPO serving as a central gateway, should you
have electronic depositories serving as nodes themselves, serving
a more distributed function?
 
     Although Council never answered the question as to whether GPO
should be in the business of providing access to electronic
government information online, the answer is in the GPO Access
bill.  Once it becomes law, the specific provisions as to what GPO
should be doing are outlined in the bill.  If GPO doesn't do a good
job of fulfilling the requirements of the Access bill, the question
is a moot one because GPO won't be involved in it anyway.
 
     Discussion of the third cluster of scenarios, the
relationships between different types of depositories, was
incorporated into the discussion of the Dupont Circle Group (DCG)
document.  In talking about the DCG document, the discussion moved
from GPO's role in all of this to the actual structure of the
dissemination program.  It was the general consensus of Council
that the status quo was not a viable option.
 
     With regards to Service Model 1 - Federal Information Service
Centers, it was decided that the depository community should be
surveyed to determine if enough interest exists for GPO to pursue
this as a viable option.  While it was decided that more than one
core collection would be necessary (i.e. law, sci/tech, general),
the incentives would still be reduced administrative overhead.  The
core list would not be restricted by format.
 
     The intermediate service center seems to be the model of the
average selective depository.  What makes the intermediate service
centers unique?  How are they different from full service centers?
It would appear that intermediates would serve as the linkage or
transition between full and basic service centers.  It became clear
that intermediate service centers are very hard to describe since
they cover a number of different people and collections.
 
     The full service center seems to get into the role of
regionals.  What is the incentive for a library to be a full
service center?  Should full service centers act as libraries of
last resort?  It was hard to see full service centers as separate
from regionals or subject based libraries.  It was suggested that
shared regionals might be the way to go - does every regional have
to get everything?  Or could 2-3 libraries share that
responsibility for a given number of states?
 
     It would be nice to report that Council came to a conclusion
and recommendation for how the DLP should be restructured.
Unfortunately they did not.  While they may have answered some
questions, they probably raised additional ones.  The discussion
continues - please come to ALA and AALL prepared to discuss this
important topic.
 
Submitted by:
Susan E. Tulis
DLC Secretary
[log in to unmask]
202-662-9200
 
********************************************************************
 
GPO ACCESS BILL SIGNED INTO LAW!!
 
   On Tuesday, June 6, 1993, President Clinton signed into law the
Government Printing Office Electronic Information Access Enhancement
Act of 1993 [Public Law 103-40, 107 Stat. 112 (1993), 44 U.S.C. 4101-
4104 (1993)].  Provisions of the law require GPO to:  (1) create and
maintain a directory of federal publications in electronic format;
(2) provide online computer access to the directory as well as the
Congressional Record, the Federal Register, and possibly other
documents; and (3) operate an electronic storage facility for the
information provided through the online system.  GPO is authorized
to charge reasonable fees not to exceed the incremental cost of
dissemination, but the law permits the system to be made available to
depository libraries without charge.  While the law signifies GPO's
responsibility for disseminating electronic government information,
no additional appropriations were authorized to implement the provisions
of the act.
 
 
Dupont Circle Reporter, Number 7, June 10, 1993
#######################################################################